Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: What a great example of a guy in denial. Read the quote, again.

Posted by jamesgarvin on November 20, 2007 at 12:35:36:
I think Scott took issue with your premise that the director's cut is generally bogus. There is nothing "sacrosanct" about the original script. But Scott's valid point is that the original director's version contains his or her original vision for the film, the artistic vision, if you will, whereas the studio makes the edits for financial reasons. We want a shorter film because we can show the film more times per day, and therefore make more money, etc. Or the studio brings in a test audience, and the studio cuts a film based upon what the test audience "likes", as opposed to what is "good."

You should be very aware of the latter, having seen and praised Hollywoodland, which contained a scene showing one of Reeve's serious film efforts being cut from the film (I believe it was On the Waterfront)because a test audience cracked jokes when he was on the screen. The editing was not performed to make the film a better film, but to make it more popular, and, in the end, to make more money for the studio. I think Scott acknowledged that there were a few examples where the studio edited a film to make it better, but they generally edit the film to conform to an audience's taste, or to make more money.

The director's cut allows the audience to see the film as the director intended. I am surprised, in light of your love of films off the beaten track which are generally very director oriented, that you would defend and condone the studio's practice of changing the director's vision, edits that are generally made to make the the studio more money. I would have thought you would argue that the director, an artist, should be able to present his or her art to the public without bean counters repainting the canvas which the director painted. Whether a version of the film is based upon a director's vision, versus one made for commerce, I would have thought you would support the former.

But I guess that is the hyprocrisy of being the Tinman - the argument is what is important, and is more important than taking and maintaining a consistent position throughout different posts. And while I thought your arrogance and conceit knows no bounds, I am amazed that you apparently know more of the process, and the reasons therefor, than someone involved in it. Or not.

And I am not sure that God invented producers. You mean, like in a lab. Seeing as how the producer is the least creative person in the process, generally either funding the film, or securing the funding for the film, I am not sure I would give their "vision" as much import as you obviously do. It seems that whether the producer or the director is more important depends upon which day it is, and which cat you need to skin.